Go to page

Go to page

Go to page

Well, my father fought them in WWII, and was also stationed at Hickam Field, during the attack on Pearl. He saw a lot of fighting, as a gunner in a bomber, and finally got shot up in 1944, and sent home. He did not start a fight with them, they picked the fight with him. If you are going to walk up and punch someone in the face, for no particular reason for such extreme violence, then be prepared to get it taken to you.

I would almost bet that if the Japanese were to be able to build the A-bomb, I bet they would have used it.

Mmmm, gosh, where to begin? Let’s see, on Dec 6, 1941, the Pacific was at peace. On Dec 7, it was no longer at peace because of a sneak attack by the Japanese on the US Pacific Fleet berthed at Pearl Harbor Hawai’i. The Japanese Imperial Navy had been at sea for some time before the attack occurred, so the Japanese who had a “peace delegation” in Washington knew all along that they were going to attack a peaceful US Navy. That’s the definition of “treachery”.

When the Japanese let the dogs of war out, they had no idea of what they were unleashing. They deserved to be pounded into the dirt, simple as that.

Well, my father fought them in WWII, and was also stationed at Hickam Field, during the attack on Pearl. He saw a lot of fighting, as a gunner in a bomber, and finally got shot up in 1944, and sent home. He did not start a fight with them, they picked the fight with him. If you are going to walk up and punch someone in the face, for no particular reason for such extreme violence, then be prepared to get it taken to you.

I would almost bet that if the Japanese were to be able to build the A-bomb, I bet they would have used it.

The problem with that line of reasoning isn't that the Japanese way of prosecuting the war was often as criminal as it was despicable.

The problem is how that fact is used as confirmation of the correctness of anything done to the Japanese, which is a piece of circular logic.

That kind circular logic operate in most conflicts. The Japanese certainly did it too at the time.

In essence it reads: "We're the good guys, so if we are putting some other people through something brutal, well, clearly then they deserved it. It stands to reason that we just wouldn't do anything this bad unless them other feller really deserved it."

That's one to watch out for. The ability for a nation to NOT engage in that kind of circular self-justification, at least post-fact, tends to be important.

This entire thread was asking if the bombing of Hiroshima could be considered a war crime or not, not a historical what-if, you know that right? You're saying that I would prefer to see Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire succeed just because I consider a nuclear bombing illegal and inhumane? I'm not pillorying allied victory; I'm pillorying the fact that the Hiroshima bombing was (and shockingly still is) considered the only way to end WW2. Say what you will about how "it saved American and Japanese lives from an invasion" but the only people that thought an invasion of Japan was necessary in any way were Americans themselves.

Japan was ready to discuss peace terms and further negotiations with Japan would have achieved better results than headlines like “Peace in the Pacific: Our Bomb Did It!” and stamps such as "Atoms for peace".

Can you please list times and dates of Japanese approached to the Allies to discuss surrender terms. I ask this because I am aware that there was at least one very feeble and unauthorized attempt by some well-placed Japanese to contact the Soviets, but no approaches to the any of the Allies themselves. So, if the Japanese were so anxious to end this war, why did they not contact any - American, Australian, British, Dutch, New Zealand, etc - of the allies in order to accomplish this?

Yes they were "legitimate targets" and "strategic locations" but how does that exactly justify the use of a nuclear bomb? I don't think one has to use atomic bombs that resulted in the killing of quarter one million civilians of the city to bomb a strategic location.

Well, I guess military forces can't "take responsibility for the governance of territory" for they are military and not qualified to govern anyone or anything. But they can guarantee the government will lead a certain line of "governing" and not the other. A good example is the GDR or Czechoslovakia. The Soviet troops governed no one but they guaranteed the governing were to be a prosoviet one.

Seems to me, you are skirting the real issue: Are the Americans in Japan there against the will of the Japanese government/people? If they are there against the will of the Japanese government, you would have an argument to make; if, however, they are there because the Japanese want our presence, then you have no case to make.

Someday, the Japanese will decide that our presence is no longer required for their protection. At that point, we will leave. And when that day arrives, you will no longer have any fake arguments to make about how the Japanese are being forced to accept US troops on their territory. Be warned, though, that this may make you unhappy because you’ll have to find something else to focus on.

When the Philippines asked the US to leave Subic Bay, it did. If Japan asked the US to leave, it would. Japan government hasn't asked the US to leave yet.

I don't see a moral difference between the fire bombing of Tokyo with conventional bombs and the atomic bombing, they both killed about the same number of people, except the atomic bombing brought an end to the war, the Emperor specifically cited the atomic bombing as a major factor for surrender and did not mention the.Soviet entry into the war at all in his surrender speech.

As for the alleged Japanese peace efforts, if they were truly interested in surrender they would have a had a counter peace terms proposal available and they did not, showing they were not truly serious about surrender. It was just a delaying tactics, just as their "peace negotions" before Pearl Harbor were delaying tactic just to lull American suspicions. While.thd Japanese were engaged so called peace negotions their fleet was actually steaming ahead for a sneak attack. Given that history, Americans just would not have trusted any Japanese attempts at "negotiation" and they would have been right not to do so. Any Japanese attempt.at "negotiation" would have just been a dealing tactic by the Japanese and the Americans wouldn't been fooled a second time. Given Japanes repeated attempts.to rewrite their history books, nothing th y now say can be trusted to be either accurate or truthful.

It must be pointed out the Japanese were perfectly able to surrender without alnegotiations after the second atomic bomb was dropped. Nothing stopped the Japanese from surrendering before, they had clearly lost the war, but they refused to.

Historum

Founded in 2006, Historum is a history forum dedicated to history discussions and historical events. Our community welcomes everyone from around the world to discuss world history, historical periods, and themes in history - military history, archaeology, arts and culture, and history in books and movies.